Kyle Rittenhouse goes to trial

[Kaztropol]

We know who the initial aggressor was. We have it on video.

is that video admissible in court ? is there an appropriate chain of custody of the video footage to demonstrate it has not been tampered with ?

[Kerwa]

We know who the initial aggressor was. We have it on video.

is that video admissible in court ? is there an appropriate chain of custody of the video footage to demonstrate it has not been tampered with ?

It can probably be authenticated by a witness.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Kid shouldn't've shot a dude over a plastic bag imo. And then some more dudes who probably reasonably (though wrongly) assumed he was gonna do some spree shooting.

Brandishing is displaying something to threaten someone with it.

Like when my illegal neighbor trespassed onto my property, i brandished a golf club, and he sprinted off and called the police on me for threatening him.

Love how the most reasonable course of action for somebody touching the wrong blade of grass in the greatest country on Earth is to bring up the possibility of deadly force. USA!

I had a guy trespass onto my property 2 years ago, carrying a rifle with him. Of course, this was during deer season, it was a black powder rifle, and he asked permission to retrieve the deer he shot on another property (I'd heard the shot 20-30 minutes earlier). Despite him "touching the wrong blade of grass", at no time did the possibility of deadly force crop up.

The next day when the game warden showed up unannounced (armed with a pistol) investigating the large bloodstain in the snow, again the wrong blade of grass was touched, and again there was no possibility of deadly force.

[Kaztropol]

is that video admissible in court ? is there an appropriate chain of custody of the video footage to demonstrate it has not been tampered with ?

It can probably be authenticated by a witness.

"probably" isn't good enough for a criminal trial though, is it ?

which then goes back to what i said earlier, about how juries have to make their decisions based only on what is presented in court.

And a lot of stuff can't be presented in court for one or other reasons, which leads to a disconnect between what the jury decision is, and what people on the outside of the courtroom believe to be the 'correct' decision.

[Immortan Khan]

Drone footage is public now.

I said I didn't see a vehicle fire before, but it looks like in the footage there IS a vehicle fire ahead right next to the Ziminskis. I didn't see it in the video of the event, but it shows clearly on infrared (which looks at heat).
It also shows the Ziminskis and Rosenbaum running ahead of Rittenhouse to take up position.

Rittenhouse actually also starts running - but whether he's running after the Ziminskis or running towards the fire is an interpretation question.

Rittenhouse was seen running with a fire extinguisher prior to the start of the confrontation iirc.

[Fartsniffage]

Drone footage is public now.

I said I didn't see a vehicle fire before, but it looks like in the footage there IS a vehicle fire ahead right next to the Ziminskis. I didn't see it in the video of the event, but it shows clearly on infrared (which looks at heat).
It also shows the Ziminskis and Rosenbaum running ahead of Rittenhouse to take up position.

Rittenhouse actually also starts running - but whether he's running after the Ziminskis or running towards the fire is an interpretation question.

Rittenhouse was seen running with a fire extinguisher prior to the start of the confrontation iirc.

So you admit he had a blunt force weapon as well as a ranged weapon?

[Torrocca]

Kid shouldn't've shot a dude over a plastic bag imo. And then some more dudes who probably reasonably (though wrongly) assumed he was gonna do some spree shooting.



Love how the most reasonable course of action for somebody touching the wrong blade of grass in the greatest country on Earth is to bring up the possibility of deadly force. USA!

I had a guy trespass onto my property 2 years ago, carrying a rifle with him. Of course, this was during deer season, it was a black powder rifle, and he asked permission to retrieve the deer he shot on another property (I'd heard the shot 20-30 minutes earlier). Despite him "touching the wrong blade of grass", at no time did the possibility of deadly force crop up.

The next day when the game warden showed up unannounced (armed with a pistol) investigating the large bloodstain in the snow, again the wrong blade of grass was touched, and again there was no possibility of deadly force.

Well yeah, that's actually reasonable. I was talking the American Average for "reasonable".

[Kerwa]

It can probably be authenticated by a witness.

"probably" isn't good enough for a criminal trial though, is it ?

which then goes back to what i said earlier, about how juries have to make their decisions based only on what is presented in court.

And a lot of stuff can't be presented in court for one or other reasons, which leads to a disconnect between what the jury decision is, and what people on the outside of the courtroom believe to be the 'correct' decision.

I meant “probably” as in there is likely a witness that can do that, which is good enough for a a defendant to get relevant evidence admitted in a criminal trial.

[Immortan Khan]

Rittenhouse was seen running with a fire extinguisher prior to the start of the confrontation iirc.

So you admit he had a blunt force weapon as well as a ranged weapon?

The implication being he was probably running to assist putting out the fire when he was confronted by Rosenbaum and others.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I had a guy trespass onto my property 2 years ago, carrying a rifle with him. Of course, this was during deer season, it was a black powder rifle, and he asked permission to retrieve the deer he shot on another property (I'd heard the shot 20-30 minutes earlier). Despite him "touching the wrong blade of grass", at no time did the possibility of deadly force crop up.

The next day when the game warden showed up unannounced (armed with a pistol) investigating the large bloodstain in the snow, again the wrong blade of grass was touched, and again there was no possibility of deadly force.

Well yeah, that's actually reasonable. I was talking the American Average for "reasonable".

Well, I am an American, and I consider my ability to consider whether a situation requires a "reasonable" response to be average, at least among everyone I usually interact with.

[Galloism]

So I am a little behind. I just finished watching Binger's opening statement. I've had some work to do today and wasn't able to listen in the background for long periods.

His opening was ok. A little strong on rhetoric and innuendo and a little light on facts, but not bad.

Defense opening is next.

[Grinning Dragon]

I dunno if I would waive my 5th Amendment right like mr. black did to help the prosecution.

[Kubra]

Sure, but from the video, it did seem like he reassessed that idea until he heard the shot be fired.

Regardless, like I said earlier and like Kubra said, this whole situation's just one big case of monumental stupidity.

That's true.

This whole event is less political than it is sheer stupid insanity.

This shits always intensely political. As I always say: the person who mattered the least in the Dreyfus affair was Dreyfus, and the event that mattered least was his trial.
I'm of the opinion we really should be centering the cops here, because keeping sides separate is pretty much fundamental. Sure, I'm a communist and therefore don't like cops doing crowd control in general, but it's worse of they do it *poorly*.

[Galloism]

Defense wants to use 41 exhibits during the opening statements. Prosecution offered 0.

Prosecution objected. The judge remarked that the prosecution has opened exactly this way before, and he allowed it in those cases, so he's going to also allow it in this case.

EDIT #1: Since this is still the last post, I'll just add it to here.

The prosecutor remarked in his opening statement that Rosenbaum had gotten out of the hospital that day and that he was not able to stay with his girlfriend that night, which is why he was downtown with the hospital bag. Defense argued this opened the door to the fact Rosenbaum was in a hospital for mental reasons, and that the reason he couldn't stay with his girlfriend was the active restraining order.

They discussed for a while. The judge said he'll need them to submit a motion on that to see if it's admissible but he doubts it, but not to mention it in the defense's opening statement.

EDIT #2: They named the person (Nick Smith) who told Rittenhouse to car down to Car Source #3 regarding the fires. They have the witness name and the phone call in question. He asked someone for a fire extinguisher, and asked them to go with him down to Car Source. They refused. So he went alone (this was a very bad decision as it turns out).

They show the FBI video that the prosecution has claimed proved its case and set the narrative ahead of time on what it actually shows.

"you'll hear testimony not just from Kyle Rittenhouse but also Ryan Balch"

So they seem to indicate Rittenhouse will be testifying. This is very risky to any defense, regardless of guilt or innocence.

He's stepping through the evidence in chronological order.

He countered the prosecution's argument of "the first two shots disabled joseph rosenbaum, then Rittenhouse shot him in the back which killed him" by pointing out those four shots took place in 0.76 seconds. 76/100 of a second. It was one decision, basically, and the prosecution tried to imply it was two (decision to disable, then decision to kill). There's no way you can make two decisions in that short of a timeframe.

[The Two Jerseys]

That kyle chased down rosenbaum, shot him in the back and didn't even stick around to render aid.

Really needs to sue for malicious prosecution after this is said and done.

File an ethics complaint too, motherfucker needs to be disbarred.

[Countesia]

"teenager shoots rioters" isn't a headline I expect to see from a first world nation

[Relden]

"teenager shoots rioters" isn't a headline I expect to see from a first world nation

He wouldn't have shot them if they didn't all try to attack him.

[Ifreann]

"teenager shoots rioters" isn't a headline I expect to see from a first world nation

This happened in America.
*pause for laughter*

[Flarbinia]

No, it was not.

The Left threatened the Jury if they did not come to the "Right Verdict". That's cut-and-dry Jury Intimidation.

[Jabberwocky]

Well, he's white, so he'll get off easy.

[Countesia]

"teenager shoots rioters" isn't a headline I expect to see from a first world nation

This happened in America.
*pause for laughter*

huehuehue

"teenager shoots rioters" isn't a headline I expect to see from a first world nation

He wouldn't have shot them if they didn't all try to attack him.

"teenager swarmed by rioters, forced to shoot in self defence" is not a headline I would expect from a first world nation either

[Salus Maior]

"teenager swarmed by rioters, forced to shoot in self defence" is not a headline I would expect from a first world nation either

Then honestly you don't know much about the first world, and are blinded by the false ideal of what the "first world" is.

Churches being burnt in Canada, riots throughout Europe, police crackdowns and anti-vaxxers everywhere...Yeah, the "first world" is doing great.

[Torrocca]

"teenager shoots rioters" isn't a headline I expect to see from a first world nation

He wouldn't have shot them if they didn't all try to attack him.

He never should've been there to begin with.

[Galloism]

Surprising reveal from the defense opening statement:

Grosskreutz's statement to the police was that he was running up to try and stop Huber from beating Rittenhouse with his skateboard.

[Gurkland]

"teenager shoots rioters" isn't a headline I expect to see from a first world nation

He wouldn't have shot them if they didn't all try to attack him.

It was a pretty intense and violent moment where the natural instinct of the people there took over and it was either flight or flee to the death even in front of lethal weapons, so he was right to defense himself. The problem is that he's a self appointed militia with no authorization to act so as only the police have the monopoly of force in a civilized state and he had an illegally obtained weapon in a place and moment he didn't belonged to. He should be not guilty but his militias should be dismanded and those riots forbidden and everyone prosecuted. Literally everyone. The rioters and the militia leaders should be in jail, that's what a civilized society do. Those lootings were all antisocial behaviors.